Hi-
The implications of the EQ matching attempt are interesting, I think.
Again, thanks Paul and Andrew. This is a mic array comparison I've
been wanting to better understand for a long time.
First let me state that I have some reason to believe the midrange
frequency response of the MKH20's and the 3032's is close enough to
not be a big concern with this comparison. Here's a sonogram from a
mic comparison test I made with Rich Peet that includes a 3032 and
two other MKH models in January: http://tinyurl.com/yzwzzgc
The SASS array seems to create a frequency response "lift" between
roughly 500-1600 Hz compared to that of the head-spaced, Parallel
Boundary array. I only used segments of distant sounds from their
recordings so discrepancies in array spacing and orientation would be
lessened. The most distant sounds coming from the horizon are more
challenging for mic arrays to capture and when spatiality is a
desired attribute, they can be quite crucial. Most stereo arrays do a
pretty good job of imaging robust, higher frequency sounds at closer
distances.
QuickTme movie for viewing with a QT compatible web browser (13 mb)
http://tinyurl.com/ygxmton
QuickTme movie for downloading (13 mb)
http://tinyurl.com/ygc5a34
Be sure to turn down the playback volume of the movie to a
comfortable level. These are recordings of "backgrounds." The movie
sound track has no compression but they were made from Paul's (well
saturated) mp3's. They can be extracted and analyzed.
I feel that the SASS array's impact on spatial clarity is positive. I
would describe the advantage as increased airyness that also presents
more detail in the affected Hz range than what I'd expect to get
optimizing the PB's recording. Hopefully, someone else can do an EQ
matching test to see if they get similar results with different
monitoring. One can probably make the matches a little closer. I
opted to go with a linear phase EQ plug that only has four bands.
Would I rather bring home the SASS recording or the PB recording?
I'd do some fine tuning on both files for critical applications, but
I'm a big fan of the type of clarity that the SASS seems to be adding
in this recording situation. More tests need to be done. I don't
think the mics themselves are making a huge difference in the results
of this comparison-- but its another variable that needs to be
accounted for.
Thanks to Paul's excellent documentation, I can see that the capsule
to leading edge "set back" distance of his PB rig was about 1" -
Message: 1.
Subject: 25" Using a deeper setback can reduce airyness, but his should
have been pretty well optimized for mid-range response. Folks who
would like to explore getting more airyness, might consider a shorter
setback or running a set back distance test to determine what "works"
the best.
I haven't started listening for stereo imaging differences as yet.
The video presents a blind comparison. You should be able to tell
which array is C and which is D based on my comments but I'll also
make the ID's known after folks want to have listened to the results
and looked at the EQ curves. Rob D.
=3D =3D =3D =3D
At 9:55 AM -0600 3/13/10, Rob Danielson wrote:
>
>
>Hi Michael.
>Bowling Balls, large lead acid car batteries, granite boulders and
>concrete slabs-- all work very well because there's so much
>participation on the part of the recordist. Also if the mics cost
>over $1000 each, that helps. :-) More about other array types and
>options in other strings. :-)
>
>Tone, tone, tone and then space.
>
>On my speakers, hearing the recordings playback one after the other,
>the airyness in the sound that turned out to be the SASS/MKH20 rig
>really jumped out.
>
>Later today, I'll see if I can approximate the sound of the
>SASS-MKH20 with EQ adjustments to the PB and vice versa. As monitors
>play a large role with such "matching," if someone else wants to give
>that a shot, it might amplify what is learned significantly.
>
>Also, Paul J, if you want to make the first minute or so of the
>original .wavs available, that might make the comparison more
>reliable. Rob D.
>
>At 2:02 PM +0000 3/13/10, David Michael wrote:
>>
>>
>>Thank Paul and Rob for posting this material. These comparisons are
>>really crucial in being able to quantify our discussions.
>>
>>I agree with you Paul, there are a lot of variables at play in the
>>comparison. In particular, the MKH20 and AT3022 have quite different
>>tonal qualities (in open air). I wonder if some of the
>>'spaciousness' that we hear in the MKH20 SASS is not attributable to
>>its frequency response - or perhaps even the direction in which the
>>MKH rig was pointed? That being said, to my ear, the SASS rig in
>>general sounds much more spacious (not sure about image
>>localization).
>>
>>On another topic, I am now very curious about curved boundary rigs.
>>I have seen (and heard) Rob's rig which I believe uses a bowling
>>ball. Is this correct Rob? Are there others on list who have built
>>similar - perhaps out of a more portable material? I was
>>contemplating building a mannequin head rig, but it seems there are
>>many techniques to fool the brain into hearing space. A sphere might
>>as reasonable an approximation of a head as microphones are of ears.
>>
>>Best
>>David
>>
>>--- In
>><naturerecordists%40yahoogroups.com><naturerecordists%40yah=
oogroups.com>
>>Rob Danielson <> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Paul J--
>>> Thanks for conducting the comparison and putting it together for us
>>> on line. I find it very informative.
>>>
>>> I wanted to be able to listen to the samples closely juxtaposed and
>>> blind. In case others want to try this:
>>>
>>> (1) QuickTime Movie comparing clips from the two rigs for viewing
>>> with a web browser:
>>>
>>><<http://snipurl.com/utdv0>http://snipurl.com/utdv0><http://snipurl.com/=
utdv0>http://snipurl.com/utdv0
>>>(8mb) Requires QuickTime
>>>
>>> (2) QuickTime Movie comparing clips from the two rigs for downloading
>>> and viewing with QuickTime. MPPEG Streamclip or most other Media
>>> players.
>>><<http://tinyurl.com/ygm8otf>http://tinyurl.com/ygm8otf><http://tinyurl.=
com/ygm8otf>http://tinyurl.com/ygm8otf
>>>(8mb .zip)
>>>
>>> I posted the ID for the clips in the comment area here:
>>>
>>><<http://diystereoboundarymics.blogspot.com/2010/03/jacobson-skeoch-sass=
-and-diy-parallel.html>http://diystereoboundarymics.blogspot.com/2010/03/ja=
cobson-skeoch-sass-and-diy-parallel.html><http://diystereoboundarymics.blog=
spot.com/2010/03/jacobson-skeoch-sass-and-diy-parallel.html>http://diystere=
oboundarymics.blogspot.com/2010/03/jacobson-skeoch-sass-and-diy-parallel.ht=
ml
>>>
>>> Rob D.
>>>
>>> At 10:30 AM +1100 3/13/10, Paul Jacobson wrote:
>>> >Hi Paul
>>> >
>>> >I wrote a short article on a side by side comparison recording of
>>> >SASS and parallel boundary rigs which was published in the December
>>> >2008 issue of AudioWings (Vol 11, No. 2). The recordings were made
>>> >by Andrew Skeoch and myself in late 2008. The comparison was done
>>> >with our rigs set up side by side with around 2 metres spacing.
>>> >There was minimal post processing done - gain was matched and it
>>> >looks like a 50hz high pass filter was applied.
>>> >
>>> >Reading the article again and listening to the recordings I'm not
>>> >sure I would have made the same comments. There are lots of
>>> >variables at play in the comparison but it might give you an idea of
>>> >some of the differences in presentation between SASS and headspaced
>>> >parallel boundary array.
>>> >
>>> >I'm in the process of reworking the design of the AWSRG site at the
>> > >moment and haven't finalised the format for online journal articles
>>> >so you'll have to excuse the presentation and rough edges.
>>> >
>>> ><<<http://www.awsrg.org.au/audiowings/vol11/no2/notes-two-stereo-rigs=
>http://www.awsrg.org.au/audiowings/vol11/no2/notes-two-stereo-rigs><http:/=
/www.awsrg.org.au/audiowings/vol11/no2/notes-two-stereo-rigs>http://www.aws=
rg.org.au/audiowings/vol11/no2/notes-two-stereo-rigs><<http://www.awsrg.org=
.au/audiowings/vol11/no2/notes-two-stereo-rigs>http://www.awsrg.org.au/audi=
owings/vol11/no2/notes-two-stereo-rigs><http://www.awsrg.org.au/audiowings/=
vol11/no2/notes-two-stereo-rigs>http://www.awsrg.org.au/audiowings/vol11/no=
2/notes-two-stereo-rigs
> > > >
>>> >cheers
>>> >Paul
>>> >
>>> >On 12/03/2010, at 10:25 AM, "thesilverloon"
>>> ><<paulshopis%40iinet.net.au>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Thanks David,
>>> >> Its my intention to use twin AT4022 mics with the Sony PCM M-10
>>> >>and the Art Phantom 11 power supply. I would like to build a spaced
>>> >>timber baffle, to mount the mics. Are you able to tell me on the
>>> >>rig that you used, the distance between the mics, and the setback
>>> >>from the leading edge?
>>> >> I realize that there are many variations out there, but being non
>>> >>tech I have to start some where. If anyone else in this group has
>>> >>built similar, please feel free to respond. One last question. What
>>> >>is the audio difference between the above and using the AT4022's in
>>> >>a modified Crown SASS unit?
>>> >>
>>> >> Many Thanks,
>>> >>
>>> > > Paul
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>
>
--
|